WORKING GROUP I

Working Group I, chaired by Ahmed Djoghlaf (Algeria), discussed two
of the introductory elements of the Convention: the preamble and
principles.

PREAMBLE: A few delegates questioned the order of topics
under discussion. The US, supported by the EC, thought it best to
minimize discussion on the preamble until after discussions on
other substantive parts of the Convention. The Chair said that it
is obvious that the Working Group cannot agree on the exact content
of the preamble at this time, but he wanted to hear comments.

There appeared to be consensus on the need for a clear and concise
preamble that contains reference to the history of desertification
in the UN system. Australia, supported by many other delegates,
said that the preamble should include: the causes of
desertification; the link between desertification and other
problems, including demographic factors, refugees, poverty and
trade flows; the importance of community involvement; and the need
to coordinate existing regional and international programmes.
Canada and Mauritania added the importance of Africa to the list.
Brazil did not think that the causes of desertification should be
listed.

Brazil thought that a number of benchmark documents should be
mentioned, including the 1977 Plan of Action, Chapter 12 of Agenda
21 and the Rio Declaration, specifically principles 2,3,5,7,8 and
10. Malaysia said it was logical to recall the genesis of this
Convention, but insisted that the definition of desertification in
Chapter 12 of Agenda 21 should be retained.

There appeared to be only two contentious points in the discussion.
The EC, supported by Canada, recognized the need to make reference
to the widespread nature of desertification, however, they do not
want to refer to desertification as a "global" problem, as this has
a special meaning with regard to incremental costs and global
benefits (ie, a window for desertification in the GEF). A number of
countries, including India, Armenia, Brazil and Burkina Faso,
disagreed. The second point addressed the relationship between
poverty and desertification. Some countries, including Cte
d'Ivoire, Benin, Burkina Faso, Bolivia, Botswana, Kenya, and
Mauritania, urged that the preamble mention this relationship. The
EC did not agree.

Norway, supported by the US, mentioned the possibility of merging
the preamble and the principles sections in light of the overlap.
Nigeria said that the preamble and principles are not mutually
exclusive. This argument continued during the discussion on the
principles section.

PRINCIPLES: The main focus of this discussion was whether
there should be a section on principles and, if so, what should be
included. Developing countries argued for a separate section on
principles, as exists in the Climate Change and Biodiversity
Conventions. Mali listed the nine principles proposed by the OAU:
sovereignty over resources; sovereignty in international
cooperation programmes; collective responsibility in the
maintenance of a sound and healthy environment; cooperation and
partnership; international solidarity; shared but differentiated
responsibility; decentralization of decision-making; subsidiarity;
and integrated approaches. Gambia added the precautionary principle
and the principle of public participation to this list. Brazil
listed a number of principles that should be included, all of which
are part of the Rio Declaration. Sweden said that the Rio
Declaration should be the point of departure.

The US, supported by the UK, argued against a separate chapter as
there is the problem of legal ambiguity. A number of countries,
including Burkina Faso, Tanzania, Uganda, and Malaysia sought
clarification on what was meant by legal ambiguity. Cameroon said
the role of the Committee is to overcome ambiguities rather than
flee from them.